Wrangler the 6th most unsafe vehicle of 2015 according to these idiots
09-02-2015, 06:09 PM
#1
JK Freak
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Florida Hill Country (Tallahassee)
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Wrangler the 6th most unsafe vehicle of 2015 according to these idiots
I find it unlikely that the 2007 JK performed well in frontal tests and suddenly in 2015 they magically became unsafe. Plus the door comment shows these idiots have no clue. This report seems more like a political agenda to me.
6. Jeep Wrangler
The Jeep Wrangler has become legendary for offering incredible off-road performance and old-school simplicity. Unfortunately, that simplicity makes it a safety liability. Unsurprisingly, its iconic removable doors don’t do much in the way of crash protection, and it earned a Poor rating on the side impact test. Combined with marginal ratings in the front small overlap front and head restraint and seats tests, the rugged go-anywhere Jeep leaves something to be desired in the safety department.
Read more: 8 of the Most Unsafe Cars of 2015
The Jeep Wrangler has become legendary for offering incredible off-road performance and old-school simplicity. Unfortunately, that simplicity makes it a safety liability. Unsurprisingly, its iconic removable doors don’t do much in the way of crash protection, and it earned a Poor rating on the side impact test. Combined with marginal ratings in the front small overlap front and head restraint and seats tests, the rugged go-anywhere Jeep leaves something to be desired in the safety department.
Read more: 8 of the Most Unsafe Cars of 2015
09-03-2015, 06:46 AM
#5
JK Super Freak
The "Front small overlap" test is new and caused a lot of issues for auto manufacturers. The JK hasn't been redesigned since that was introduced, but, the NHTSA has a good point. Many frontal impacts are "glancing" as compared to full frontal, or even 50% offset frontal impacts. What they found in these glancing impacts was significant weakness in windshield pillar and side structure/front rail strength when directly impacted, including significant intrusion into the passenger footwells, causing major trauma. So, it's a valid test, but now that it's included as part of frontal impact scores, ratings appear "less safe" for manufacturers who haven't addressed this structural vulnerability.
What we're looking at is a vehicle that hasn't been updated in light of changing crash test standards over a period of almost 10 years.
Same thing with side impact scores. Whereas most SUV's now have side curtain airbags in addition to seat-side impact airbags, the Wrangler still doesn't have side curtain airbags. Seat-side airbags are only available as an option; my 2012 Sport does not have them.
Anyway, can't really comment on the political side of things. Crash test ratings are great, until they aren't. These are the stories of junk media outlets that believe all vehicles are appliances and have no other purpose than to use as little fuel as possible while transporting the typical American family and their enormous collection of junk.
Edit: The original article says the small frontal overlap test was introduced in 1995, when it was actually introduced in 2012.
Read more about the type of testing that small overlap encompasses:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/rat...al-crash-tests
What we're looking at is a vehicle that hasn't been updated in light of changing crash test standards over a period of almost 10 years.
Same thing with side impact scores. Whereas most SUV's now have side curtain airbags in addition to seat-side impact airbags, the Wrangler still doesn't have side curtain airbags. Seat-side airbags are only available as an option; my 2012 Sport does not have them.
Anyway, can't really comment on the political side of things. Crash test ratings are great, until they aren't. These are the stories of junk media outlets that believe all vehicles are appliances and have no other purpose than to use as little fuel as possible while transporting the typical American family and their enormous collection of junk.
Edit: The original article says the small frontal overlap test was introduced in 1995, when it was actually introduced in 2012.
Read more about the type of testing that small overlap encompasses:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/rat...al-crash-tests
Last edited by jk_sea; 09-03-2015 at 07:59 AM.
09-03-2015, 03:48 PM
#6
JK Freak
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Florida Hill Country (Tallahassee)
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The "Front small overlap" test is new and caused a lot of issues for auto manufacturers. The JK hasn't been redesigned since that was introduced, but, the NHTSA has a good point. Many frontal impacts are "glancing" as compared to full frontal, or even 50% offset frontal impacts. What they found in these glancing impacts was significant weakness in windshield pillar and side structure/front rail strength when directly impacted, including significant intrusion into the passenger footwells, causing major trauma. So, it's a valid test, but now that it's included as part of frontal impact scores, ratings appear "less safe" for manufacturers who haven't addressed this structural vulnerability.
What we're looking at is a vehicle that hasn't been updated in light of changing crash test standards over a period of almost 10 years.
Same thing with side impact scores. Whereas most SUV's now have side curtain airbags in addition to seat-side impact airbags, the Wrangler still doesn't have side curtain airbags. Seat-side airbags are only available as an option; my 2012 Sport does not have them.
Anyway, can't really comment on the political side of things. Crash test ratings are great, until they aren't. These are the stories of junk media outlets that believe all vehicles are appliances and have no other purpose than to use as little fuel as possible while transporting the typical American family and their enormous collection of junk.
Edit: The original article says the small frontal overlap test was introduced in 1995, when it was actually introduced in 2012.
Read more about the type of testing that small overlap encompasses:
Frontal crash tests
What we're looking at is a vehicle that hasn't been updated in light of changing crash test standards over a period of almost 10 years.
Same thing with side impact scores. Whereas most SUV's now have side curtain airbags in addition to seat-side impact airbags, the Wrangler still doesn't have side curtain airbags. Seat-side airbags are only available as an option; my 2012 Sport does not have them.
Anyway, can't really comment on the political side of things. Crash test ratings are great, until they aren't. These are the stories of junk media outlets that believe all vehicles are appliances and have no other purpose than to use as little fuel as possible while transporting the typical American family and their enormous collection of junk.
Edit: The original article says the small frontal overlap test was introduced in 1995, when it was actually introduced in 2012.
Read more about the type of testing that small overlap encompasses:
Frontal crash tests
Trending Topics
09-03-2015, 06:44 PM
#9
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't see much safety changes since 2013. I've been in 2 pretty serious front end collisions in my 2013 Rubicon and it held up great both times, no injuries. I'll think I'll keep my Wrangler 
Last edited by TXBeachJK; 09-03-2015 at 06:46 PM.
09-03-2015, 06:59 PM
#10
JK Freak
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Florida Hill Country (Tallahassee)
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It looks like you nailed that car in the "small overlap" zone. I guess that blow molded bumper is the 6th most dangerous thing to a Toyota. Glad you walked away from that.